ArticleEuropean journal of public health2021
The impacts of including information about the number of carcinogens in smoke on standardized cigarette packs in the UK.
Article in European journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pre-post implementation policy support for warnings on cigarette filters in Canada among adults who smoke cigarettes.Tobacco control · 2026Article
- ARID1A silencing-mediated upregulation of microRNA-652 accelerates cigarette smoke-induced human bronchial epithelial cell transformation by targeting ZFAND5.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Smoking is an Independent Marker of Poor Prognosis in Cutaneous Melanoma.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2023Article
- Reasons for Using Roll-Your-Own Tobacco and Perceptions of Health-Promoting Pack Inserts: A Focus Group Study with Roll-Your-Own Tobacco Smokers in Scotland.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince May 2017, standardized packaging has been mandatory in the UK, with packs required to display an 'information message' explaining that there are more than 70 carcinogens in tobacco smoke.
methodsThree waves of a longitudinal online survey in the UK with smokers pre-standardized packaging (Wave 1: April-May 2016) and followed up post-standardized packaging (Wave 2: September-November 2017, Wave 3: May-July 2019). Of the 6233 smokers at Wave 1, 4293 responded at Wave 2 and 3175 at Wave 3. We explored knowledge of the number of carcinogens in smoke, and whether knowing that smoke contains more than 70 carcinogens mediated change in the belief that the dangers of smoking are exaggerated (risk perception), stubbing out cigarettes, quit intentions and quitting. As the information message is larger on roll-your-own packs than on cigarette packs, as the packs are larger, we also explored whether there was any difference in knowing that smoke contains more than 70 carcinogens between exclusive cigarette smokers and exclusive roll-your-own smokers.
resultsKnowledge that there are over 70 carcinogens in smoke increased among smokers across waves, with the increase from Waves 1 to 3 greater for exclusive roll-your-own smokers than exclusive cigarette smokers (adjusted odds ratio=1.44; 95% CI 1.03-2.03). Knowledge that there are over 70 carcinogens in smoke mediated higher risk perception but not stubbing cigarettes out, quit intentions or quitting.
conclusionsThe information message improved knowledge of how many carcinogens are in smoke, particularly among exclusive roll-your-own smokers, and this was linked to higher risk perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.